Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-12-14
YITzcuLTuRAL NEWS.
Semi-ApnuaI Meeting of the State VI


cultural Commissioners.
The semi-annual meeting of tie Board of
State Viticultural Commissioners was held
Monday at San Francisco. President
Arcad HaraSzthy presided and there were
present four others of the Commissioners
and four were absent.
Commissioned Krug made report rela'
tive to the mercural remedy for phyilo1era
suggested and advocated by DIR. Baur, and
said that the vineyard of Mr.. Hagen III
Napa county which was experimental
with was visited by himself, MIR. Crabo and
Viticultural Officer Wheeler. They found
that the remedy was complete failure.
In this vineyard Of Mr.. Hagen the visitors
saw the Rtpdrid-a native stock resistant to
phylloxera-doin well, and the Lenor
! stock was also doing fairly well.
Resolred, That it is the sense ofthis Board that
no wine-maker should use any spirits in tortity
ing sweet wines except grape spirits Tree OF tax
ResOtled. That the bonding period of brandy
should be extended 10 five years. and that dis
1 tilleTs should be permitted TO break up pack
4 ages IN bond in any size required by the trade.
| RcsOtued That imported fruit Juices COM
pounded with alcohol should be classed as
| alcoholic compounds and taxed as such. A
special effort to secure revision of the tariff in
this respect should be made without delay.
| ReSOlred That this Commission Endorses the
| Green wine BILL introduced at the last session
of Congress, and that if any bill is introduced to
protect pure wines this session 1t shall! be Il
| similar one.
Resolped That in the recent ruling of the SUI
! preme Court in the case of People VS.. Kohler u
test case to determine the validity of the pure
| wine law this Board finds cause for regret in
that the beneficial effects expected of the pure
| wine bill in protecting the purity of California
| wines were frustrated by the decision of the
| said Supreme Court, on account of construed
| mlswording of s7id law. Section of said law
reads: 1t is desired and required that all and
every grower, manufacturer, trader, handler or
bother of California wine when selling or put
ting up for sale any California wine, or when
shipping California wine TO parties to whom
sold shall plainly stencil, brand or have printed
where IT will be easily seen, first, pure Califor-
mia wine and secondly, his name, or the firm S
name, ss the case may be, both on label or bot
tie. or package in which wine is sold and sent,
or he may, in lieu thereof If he so prefers and
elects, atiix the label which has been provided
for in Section T." Now, whereas, we recognize
that there may be just grounds for the ruling of
| the Supreme Court in deciding that this clause
may not be considered mandatory, yet we be-
| heye that u liberal construction based upon the
ordinary understanding of this portion of Sec
ton s, would make it mandatory, confoImant
| TO what we Know to have been the int ntion of
the trainers of said law. Further. that the
Board agrees that the purity of California wines
can only be protected by the passage of a ma
tional wine law.
The Commission decided to hold Con-
vention next spring. The time and ar
engagements for same were left with the
President and Chief Executive officer.
Commissioners Rose, De Turk and West
appointed committee to examine sam
piles of wine submitted to DR.. L. J. Fraser's
electrical process for aging.